What next for Australia's asylum policy?

After talks between the Federal Government and the Opposition came to a halt, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen describes what he sees as the way forward.

Transcript

icon-plusicon-minus

HEATHER EWART, PRESENTER: Talks between the government and the opposition to try to reach a compromise agreement on off shore processing of asylum seekers, have come to a grinding halt.

It means off shore processing and the Malaysia solution are dead in the water.

The government had reluctantly offered to reopen the Nauru processing centre if the opposition supported the Malaysia solution, and they say that would have cost around $2 billion.

I spoke to immigration minister Chris Bowen earlier this evening.

Chris Bowen, haven't Australians had enough of this? Why can't you get together and sort this out?

CHRIS BOWEN, IMMIGRATION MINISTER: Yes, I think Australians have had enough of this. I think they've had a gutful of the politics.

That's why the Prime Minister wrote to Tony Abbott last year, confidentially out of the glare of day to day politics, and said both sides agree with offshore processing, we should be able to sort this out.

HEATHER EWART: But it hasn't worked, has it?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well the Opposition then came back and said, 'well give us a written proposal', we did that. The Opposition says Nauru is an important part of the deterrence, we don't agree with that but in the spirit of compromise we offered it.

The Government couldn't have been more reasonable in these discussions. It made a number of serious suggestions to the Opposition as to how the concerns of both parties could be addressed. And the Opposition, unfortunately, has not moved a millimetre.

Now, Tony Abbott's track record ...

HEATHER EWART: They might argue that you haven't moved enough either?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well the evidence is clear, Heather, in the letters that the Liberal Party has released. When you look at the number of suggestions that the Government has made; we agreed to open a detention centre on Nauru if it was part of a proper regional framework complementing the other measures we have in place. We agreed to a thorough independent review of the effectiveness of temporary protection visas.

The Opposition's rejected ...

HEATHER EWART: Well that was just a review, is that pretty much a token gesture...

CHRIS BOWEN: Not at all. ...

HEATHER EWART: ...if you're just offering a review?

CHRIS BOWEN: Not at all. I mean what would the Opposition have to hide and fear from a review?

We - all the advice to us is that temporary protection visas are not a deterrent at all. If you look at the evidence from when they were introduced by the Howard government, the number of people arriving in Australia by boat went up, the number of women and children arriving by boat went up.

Now, but we said in good faith we are happy to have an independent review with terms of reference mutually agreed between the Government and the Opposition.

HEATHER EWART: On the question of Nauru, a key part of the discussions, you did say that you could reopen Nauru but at a cost estimated by your Department of almost $2 billion.

CHRIS BOWEN: Correct.

HEATHER EWART: That's an enormous amount of money, how could it cost that much?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well it is an enormous amount of money, that's right. And this is a serious costing, remembering this is the independent view of the Department of Immigration. These are the figures that ...

HEATHER EWART: This is a lot more money than it would cost to run remote detention centres in places like Christmas Island and Curtin?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well this is a place a long way from Australia, Nauru is a long way from Australia.

HEATHER EWART: So is Christmas Island.

CHRIS BOWEN: Well Nauru is obviously a very long way from Australia. And the Christmas Island detention centre is expensive, of course, everybody recognises ...

HEATHER EWART: But this is roughly four times the cost of Christmas Island?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well this costing goes to the State of the detention centre.

Remember Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison like to say there's a detention centre ready to go on Nauru, it's just plain wrong, it is just not right. The old detention centre there is in a very decrepit state, much of it has been dismantled. Some of it is a government office, some of it is a school; there's water shortages, there's problems with accommodating staff on Nauru.

I asked my Department to very seriously examine the cost of Nauru because it was an option on the table.

HEATHER EWART: Can I make this quite clear: you were really prepared to spend that amount of money on Nauru for the sake of getting up your Malaysia solution?

CHRIS BOWEN: We were prepared to enter into good faith with the Opposition to find a way that both parties, which are meant to support offshore processing, could pass the legislation. That means listening to the Opposition's concerns and trying to accommodate those.

Now the Opposition says Nauru's important. Now we've always said that a detention centre at Nauru in the absence of a regional framework would not be effective. We've always said, for example, that if you just had a detention centre at Nauru and the people being processed and referred to Australia, if they're found to be refugees, would not be a deterrent at all. And in these discussions the Liberal Party admitted that they could not nominate a country that could or might even possibly resettle people off Nauru.

HEATHER EWART: Then why go ahead with it, why make that offer?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well because our view was, and remains, that it would only be effective as a complement to the Malaysia agreement. Our current position has been we need the Malaysia agreement to break the people smuggler's business model. You could have an offshore processing centre as a complement to that in PNG and if you wanted one in Nauru that could be a complement as well.

But just by itself it's just a Christmas Island further away. And as you correctly point out, much, much a more expensive.

HEATHER EWART: Could you afford that?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well of course if it was part of a proper framework, which actually meant people weren't arriving in Australia by boat, part of that cost would be offset by the reduction in processing people in Australia. Processing people in Australia is expensive as well and when you have high numbers of arrivals that's expensive.

So if you actually had it as part of a model complementing Malaysia which meant that there wasn't that incentive to come to Australia by boat then there would be certain offsets but yes, it would be expensive. Detaining people, processing people is expensive whether it happens in Australia or offshore. But it can often be for obvious reasons more expensive when it happens offshore.

HEATHER EWART: If these talks have collapsed and indeed they have, with no sign of resurrection, do you now accept that you have no choice, that you're stuck with onshore processing?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well that's the reality, Heather. I've always said that. If this legislation didn't pass then onshore processing is the only practical, legal reality after the High Court's interpretation of existing Migration Act last year.

HEATHER EWART: So have you given up on the Malaysia solution then because you can't get it through the parliament.

CHRIS BOWEN: It cannot be implemented without this legislation, that is correct, because the Liberal Party have indicated they will vote with the Greens to oppose offshore processing. It's also the case, of course, that you could not open a detention centre on Papua New Guinea or in our view Nauru without the legislation passing.

So Mr Abbott will vote against the legislation that would enable offshore processing including a centre at Nauru.

HEATHER EWART: What is the Government's next step? Do you accept that you are going to have to deal with more boat arrivals? Will you now build more onshore centres, for example?

CHRIS BOWEN: No, I've got no plans to do that and we'll manage the situation. We will manage it with a suite of measures available to the Government.

I've said before that we'll continue to use community detention which has been very successful, I must say, many people said when I announced that we'd move families and children into the community for processing that we wouldn't be able to meet that aim. We have done. I will continue to use bridging visas and one of the suite of measures available to us.

Of course we will continue to manage the existing centres as well. But I don't have plans for further expansion over and above what has already been constructed and planned.